Humans have the capacity to learn in many different ways. Sometimes we are simply told and are expected to remember. Other times we must perform a task or procedure in order to learn.
The effectiveness at which we learn has allowed for us to survive as a species. Humans “rely more on learned skills than on innate dispositions” (Ohlsson, 2011, p. 15). This reliance on
“learned over innate skills” allows for our ability to adapt to new circumstances (Ohlsson, 2011, p. 15). The mechanism of learning is looking for patterns in our environment through personal experience or the experience of others, identifying those patterns, projecting those patterns to
future events and acting appropriately in response (Ohlsson, 2011). However, we do not all process the mechanism of learning uniformly.
Developmental psychologist Howard Gardner created the theory of multiple intelligences, which suggests that there are seven distinct intelligences to learning, rather than a singular style (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). The seven learning styles are: visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, and logical-mathematical (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). Although each measure of intelligence is “relatively independent” with its own strengths and weaknesses, Gardner opposes the idea of classifying learners to a single intelligence
(Gardner & Hatch, 1989, p. 5). The combination of these different intelligences allows for
individuals “to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress in various domains”
(Gardner, 1991, p. 12). These differences as mentioned by Gardner:
[C]hallenge an educational system that assumes that everyone can learn the same materials in the same way and that a uniform, universal measure suffices to test student learning. Indeed, as currently constituted, our education system is heavily biased toward linguistic modes of instruction and assessment and, to a somewhat lesser degree, toward logical-quantitative modes as well. (1991, p. 13)
Gardner’s theory offers a shift from the ‘one size fits all’ mentality to the adaptation and understanding of individualized learning. Despite changes in pedagogy towards more inclusive teaching and learning practices, the dominant assessment of intelligence is focused around standardized examinations. Recognizing and embracing diversity in teaching and learning experiences is necessary in order to serve changing learning styles to provide equitable opportunities for all through effective educational programming.
While ‘effective teaching’ may be a contentious term, researchers do agree that it is
“oriented to and focused on students and their learning” (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010, p.
112). Chickering and Gamson offer key characteristics for effective teaching and learning, which among other things emphasizes reciprocity and cooperation between learners and teachers, encourages active teaching, and respects diverse talents and ways of learning. Conversely, Ken Bain emphasizes the importance for teachers and their ability to create a “natural critical learning environment” where students learn by confronting intriguing problems and authentic tasks and grapple with their own ideas and consumptions (2004, p. 18). The above-mentioned key
characteristics contribute to the creation of “environments where effective learning is very likely to happen” (Ellis et al., 2011, p. 6).
Pierre Walter’s structural foundations in adult environmental education, as mentioned in Chapter Two, offers a an understanding of how diverse philosophical traditions (liberal,
progressive, behaviourist, humanistic, radical, or a combination of both) can serve as models for future effective environmental education programs in both public and private institutions. When educators suggest public education is a means “to meet an environmental management goal, the education strategy must go beyond simplistic solutions to be effective” (Andrews, Stevens &
Wise, 2002, p. 174). The intention of “meaningful education is to provide the context and relevance recognized by the learner and to generate the opportunity for the learner to apply knowledge to the environmental problem” (Andrews, Stevens & Wise, 2002, p. 174).
To facilitate the objective of meaningful environmental education, the liberal philosophy is still the principal philosophy employed in formal education. The purpose of the liberal
philosophy is focused on “both the expansion of intellectual knowledge and the development of an enlightened moral and cultural sensibility in learners” (Walter, 2011, p. 8). The assumption from the teacher’s perspective is the learner “function[s] more thoughtfully” in their capability to be rational, sensible thinkers with the ability to “absorb new knowledge” (Walter, 2011, p. 8).
The liberal philosophy relies on “faith in the power of knowledge” for transformation to occur in the learner’s knowledge and provoke changes in their behaviour towards the protection of nature (Walter, 2011, p. 8). This tradition alone is not enough to meet the mandate of meaningful environmental education. The reliance of dispensed information on hand to be sufficient to incite effective changes in individual behaviour is not enough. Thus, the incorporation of experiential learning and deep learning coupled with the foundations of the liberal tradition has the potential to generate effective educational opportunities at zoos that create behavioural change in the learner through experiences. Examples of visitor experiences available at zoos include Keeper Talks, and engaging with volunteers at interpretive stations and other displays. This offers an interactive education experience for visitors beyond the spectacle of the animal.
Experiential learning is simple in of itself because it is based on the principle that people learn through experiences. Teacher and educationist, Norman Evans defines experiential learning as “the knowledge and skills acquired through life and work experience and study which are not formally attested through any educational or professional certification” (1994, p. 1). The concept of ‘learning through doing’ allows the individual to be actively involved in the learning process rather than being a passive receiver of information. Supporters of experiential learning assert that individuals are empowered by what they learn through this process and its contributions “to growth and development can have profound consequences for the role they play in society”
(Evans, 1994, p. 4). An individual’s self-confidence in their capacity to learn “can enable them to take greater control over their lives” and apply what they learn to real-world scenarios (Evans, 1994, p. 4).
Furthermore, experiential learning can lead to deeper learning and changing behaviours.
Deeper learning transforms the way in which an individual thinks about the world and their
improved ability “to transfer what they have learned in one context to another context” (Centre for Teaching Excellence, 2015). This fosters greater learning, as opposed to administering content. Thus, if teachers opt for an experiential learning approach they may not complete all of their intended course units. It is, however, reasonable to assume that students will have the capability to comprehend the remaining unit(s) “on their own because of their deeper
understanding of the other units” (Centre for Teaching Excellence, 2015). If experiential learning occurs, it means that deep learning can happen. By retaining what one learns and doing
something with what has been learned, a change in behaviour has taken place, possibly one that indicates transformational learning experience. While experiential learning may be a challenge to established practices in education, it goes beyond the focus of the superficial approach to
learning. It offers a much more rewarding encounter for the teacher and the learner to grow and offers a “way of trying to change society,” which is what our educational system is in need of (Evans, 1994, p. 4).
Both experiential learning and deep learning help to delineate the parameters of a good learning approach. Recognizing students’ preferences for engaging in learning by “doing rather than listening,” so-called ‘authentic learning’ is becoming an effective teaching tool for
educators in and out of the classroom (Lombardi, 2007, p. 2). Similar to deep learning, authentic learning focuses on real-world applications and goes beyond course content to incorporate
“multiple disciplines, multiple perspectives, ways of working, habits of mind, and community”
(Lombardi, 2007, p. 3). The convenience of the Internet coupled with the emergence of effective
“communication, visualization and simulation technologies… offer students authentic learning experiences ranging from experimentation to real-world problem solving” (Lombardi, 2007, p. 1).
While much of what makes for authentic learning is dependent on accessibility to online research
communities, the “connection-building” is the driving force behind tapping into a “deeper sense of a discipline as a special ‘culture’… of seeing and interpreting the world” (Lombardi, 2007, p.
2).
Learning researchers have refined a list of 10 design elements for educators to adjust to any subject matter as a tool for creating what some refer to as an authentic learning experience for students.
1. Authentic activities have real-world relevance: Authentic activities match as nearly as possible the real-world tasks of professionals in practice rather than decontextualized or classroom-based tasks.
2. Authentic activities are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity: Challenges are open to multiple interpretations and are not easily solved by the application of existing algorithms. Learners must identify for themselves their own unique tasks and sub-tasks necessary to complete the major task.
3. Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time: Activities cannot be completed immediately in a short period of time; rather they are comprised of complex tasks to be investigated over a sustained period of time. They require a significant investment of time and intellectual resources.
4. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources: Tasks can be approached from multiple theoretical and practical perspectives and as such, there are no preselected resources given to learners. This requires students to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information in the process.
5. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate: Collaboration is integral to the task, both within the course and the real world, rather than achieving success by an individual learner.
6. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect: Activities enable learners to make choices and reflect on their learning both individually and socially.
7. Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain-specific outcomes: Activities are not confined to a single well-defined field or domain. Instead, activities encourage interdisciplinary perspectives and enable diverse roles and skills.
8. Authentic activities are seamlessly integrated with assessment: Assessment of activities is seamlessly integrated into the major task in a manner that reflects real- world assessment, rather than separate artificial assessment disconnected from the nature of the task.
9. Authentic activities create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else: Activities culminate in the creation of a whole product, valuable in its own right rather than an exercise or sub-step in preparation for something else.
10. Authentic activities allow competing solutions and diversity of outcome: Rather than creating a single correct response obtained by the application of rules and procedure, activities allow for diverse outcomes and competing solutions. (Lombardi, 2007;
Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2002)
Some researchers have found that authentic learning motivates students, despite disorientation or frustration, and allows them to persevere through difficulties with the style of learning because these learning practices simulate what occurs in practice; structures and the culture of their field of interest are taught in addition to content necessary to contribute to the field (Herrington, Oliver & Reeves, 2003).
An ideal learning experience, when based on the above criteria for authentic learning, ideally should provide a humanistic approach to learning. This learner-centred approach
emphasizes that change comes from within the individual. This approach inspired by David Orr suggests, “the goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one’s person” (Orr, 1991;
1996, p. 4). The need for learning must match the individual’s desire to learn. For the purposes
of this thesis, the criteria for authentic learning as presented by various pedagogical researchers discussed above is used to assess the efforts of zoos to achieve their conservation mandates through environmental education. These educators and others have been discussing zoos through the lens of experiential education. This research goes one step further to investigate specific zoos and the environmental education of their visitors.